Your Right to Know

Enlarge ImageRequest to buy this photoTom Dodge | DISPATCHThe city planted native prairie grasses, shrubs and small trees on land it owns along Hoover Reservoir to protect what will become drinking water from fertilizers and other pollutants used on lawns.

A decades-long fight for mowing rights around Columbus reservoirs — including lawsuits, proposed
changes in state law and a governor’s veto — appears to be headed toward reconciliation.

Homeowners along the city’s reservoirs have agreed to put away their lawn mowers and chain saws,
and the city has agreed to whip out its checkbook.

The Columbus City Council recently approved spending more than $400,000 to try to knock down
honeysuckle, other invasive plants and gnarled trees that property owners say block their views of
the water.

“Things seem to be getting better,” said John Anderson, who once sued the city for rights to
maintain his property on the east side of Hoover Reservoir. “I have heard people getting issues
resolved, but there are still some things that need to be addressed.”

The feud is over narrow strips of land that the city owns between the water and private
properties. The city has warned owners for years not to mow there and has prosecuted some for
repeated trespassing.

The city’s three reservoirs — Griggs, Hoover and O’Shaughnessy — supply the drinking water to
1.1 million customers in the region.

The city contends that the strips of land where city crews have planted native prairie grasses,
shrubs and small trees are vital to protecting the water from fertilizers and other pollutants used
to treat lawns.

The feud boiled over last year when state Sen. Kris Jordan, R-Ostrander, tucked an amendment
into the state’s proposed budget that would have allowed property owners to mow along the shores of
the reservoirs and prevent the city from stopping them.

City Attorney Richard C. Pfeiffer Jr. expressed outrage at the time that the state would
legalize trespassing.

Mayor Michael B. Coleman and his staff lobbied Gov. John Kasich to veto the measure, which he
did.

But the close call was enough to spook the city to thaw relationships with property owners.

Coleman’s staff has spent the past year talking with property owners to address their needs.
Now, the city is backing that up with money.

In addition to the funds the council approved to knock down vegetation, the city paid the
engineering firm Stantec $66,000 to develop a resolution that allows the city to protect the water
while giving landowners access.

A key element is recommendations to allow property owners better access to water from their
property.

Those recommendations are due to the city soon, utilities spokeswoman Laura Young Mohr said.

“We also have a website dedicated … that has been populated with a lot of documents and
frequently asked questions to help people,” Mohr said.

One of the city’s biggest gripes is about real-estate agents who advertise homes as “waterfront”
properties instead of offering a “water view.” Mohr said that gives potential buyers the false
impression that they would own the waterfront.

“They don’t own it, and it’s just false advertising,” she said.

Real-estate agents disagree.

“Technically, (the city) is correct that it would be a Hoover view, but new owners are fully
versed in the deed restrictions,” said Kurt McCurdy, an agent in Westerville. “But it’s a
technicality because people have use of the water frontage with proper” permits.

McCurdy likens it to property he rents in Florida that is advertised as beachfront or
oceanfront.

“I don’t own the beach there, either, but what would you call it then?”

McCurdy said the city should be more amenable to property owners along the reservoir because
they pay a premium — as much as $3 million — to live along the reservoirs.

“Owners just want access,” said Columbus real-estate agent J. Kevin Sullivan, who is selling
property along Hoover Reservoir. “If they don’t have it, it hurts the resale value of the
property."